From the commercials, it looked like it was just hysterical fear mongering.

"He who serves all, best serves himself" Jack London

Originally Posted by Bjforrestal

I don't care if you are on a unicycle, as long as you're not using a motor to get places you get props from me. We're here to support each other. Share ideas, and motivate one another to actually keep doing it.

There are logical and reasoned arguments for why the things described in the film might happen. To me, they spent too much time on the hypothetical storyline, and hardly any time explaining the reasons why some of these things might happen. I suppose they assumed that climate change is sufficiently well understood by the audience that they really didn't need to say that much, but there are other issues that they barely touched on.

The problem is this - without giving the reasoning, the whole program seems like BS. If you are already familiar with the arguments, then the program is a just a story about some woman's life. Kind of a long story actually...

The way the program presented it, they said this scenario is a "worst case". But some of the people I know who think about these types of issues fear that these types of things may happen except a lot sooner than described in this film.

If you have already done the background research, read Friedman and Diamond, and the lesser known authors and scientists, this is pretty much a collection of their ideas and bringing them together to present a worst case scenario. Worst case scenario is horrible. Expected case scenario is pretty bad. Best case scenario is still going to be tough going. They are just trying to scare the apathetic into action. I thought it was a commendable program myself.

If you have already done the background research, read Friedman and Diamond, and the lesser known authors and scientists, this is pretty much a collection of their ideas and bringing them together to present a worst case scenario. Worst case scenario is horrible. Expected case scenario is pretty bad. Best case scenario is still going to be tough going. They are just trying to scare the apathetic into action. I thought it was a commendable program myself.

Here's the thing though. They called this a "worst case scenario", but the forums I am in where people consider these things regularly, people found it surprisingly optimistic. The reason being that some people fear that these types of events could happen far sooner than was presented in the program.

You can read any of Richard Heinberg's books and Lester Brown's "Plan B 3.0". Any of these would be good.

Beyond this, you start getting into more scholarly books (Tainter, Catton). Catton's book "Overshoot" in particular is relevant in that it discusses how a population can overshoot the carrying capacity of an ecosystem, which inevitably leads to a "die-off" at the end. In the case of humans, the thinking is that petrochemical inputs (such as fertilizers and pesticides) made the "Green Revolution" possible, which lead to an explosion in human population. Once we have exhausted the oil and natural gas that are the raw materials for the petrochemicals, then the 9 billion dollar question is how much food will we be able to produce, and will we be able to make enough to feed everyone? The people who have given this a lot of thought are guessing that the maximum sustainable human population is probably in the 1-2 billion range.

But it isn't just petrochemicals. There are a number of ways in which we are over-extracting resources of one sort or another. It could be overextracting water from underground aquifers that we use to irrigate crops, or overfishing the oceans. Lester Brown's book covers many of these things.

Finally, the book "Limits to Growth (30 year update)" is worth considering. On the surface it is kind of dry - essentially computer simulations were used for a number of scenarios. But it too considers these possibilities. Economists hate the thing, but I have never really understood any of their arguments against it.

There are logical and reasoned arguments for why the things described in the film might happen. To me, they spent too much time on the hypothetical storyline, and hardly any time explaining the reasons why some of these things might happen. I suppose they assumed that climate change is sufficiently well understood by the audience that they really didn't need to say that much, but there are other issues that they barely touched on.

The problem is this - without giving the reasoning, the whole program seems like BS. If you are already familiar with the arguments, then the program is a just a story about some woman's life. Kind of a long story actually...

The way the program presented it, they said this scenario is a "worst case". But some of the people I know who think about these types of issues fear that these types of things may happen except a lot sooner than described in this film.

Such hypotheses are good and can provide a warning. "1984" is a good example. Typically, we don't listen.

And always, the future turns out different. Seems like now that we know big brother is watching, most people just don't care. Many people want more video surveillance, not less.

In High School, Ecology classes gave us the dire warnings of the Club of Rome and it looked like our generation would see lifetimes of world famine. But then the green revolution came in and changed the game. There has been famine, much of it caused by inability to get the food to the people rather than the ability to produce it. But not the way futurists imagined it.

All we can do is to lead our lives the best we can and correct the problems that are here and now and hope that people in the future do the same with their lives.

"He who serves all, best serves himself" Jack London

Originally Posted by Bjforrestal

I don't care if you are on a unicycle, as long as you're not using a motor to get places you get props from me. We're here to support each other. Share ideas, and motivate one another to actually keep doing it.

The special failed in a couple of aspects for me. One is the failure to really discuss the impact of overpopulation of the worldwide human species today. Since the economic world of measuring success is how many bodies you attract to sell whatever it is you are selling, I noticed this program is like all the other commercial ventures before it. It barely touched on the fact that babies are no longer as welcomed as they were before. People just "love" babies. They don't think about the consquences of their actions-either on a personal or global way-nor deep down do they really care to admit it. Babies grow up to be as stupid as their parents and continue the mindless breeding pattern, I guess.

The other thing is a bicycle issue and the reason why I posted the links on this forum. The character was riding a bike as an older adult. Nothing amiss here except that the character was wearing a helmet. My question while I was viewing the show was how in the world she could have a helmet when resources are drying up and the probability is that plastics (being made from petroleum) will be in short supply or even nonexistent by that time? Or perhaps plastics become so valuable that they would be used for far more critical purposes. A helmet has a short lifespan (sweat & damage factors) so buying a used one (assuming they are available) is out of the question. And if the number of cars drop off even in NYC does occur, why does she need to have one in the first place? People in Europe seem to not care to use one except in those particular countries there that are motor vehicle orientated (clogged with cars).

Such hypotheses are good and can provide a warning. "1984" is a good example. Typically, we don't listen.

And always, the future turns out different. Seems like now that we know big brother is watching, most people just don't care. Many people want more video surveillance, not less.

In High School, Ecology classes gave us the dire warnings of the Club of Rome and it looked like our generation would see lifetimes of world famine. But then the green revolution came in and changed the game. There has been famine, much of it caused by inability to get the food to the people rather than the ability to produce it. But not the way futurists imagined it.

All we can do is to lead our lives the best we can and correct the problems that are here and now and hope that people in the future do the same with their lives.

The Club of Rome, as I recall, warned that population would correct itself through four mechanisms, famine, war, disease, or birth control. Without AIDs enhancing the effects of TB and Malaria the african population would be larger wouldn't it? Something else the limits to growth predicted was that population pressures in the South American countries would result in a mass movements of people to the North.

Fear is a valuable emotion. It drives people (and sheep) into action. Without fear, sheep (and the human race) would have become extinct many thousands of years ago.

After fear kicks us into action, we need some intelligence and foresight to guide our actions in a useful direction. That's the iffy part. Reasoned action happens rarely with people, and never with sheep.

Catton's book "Overshoot" in particular is relevant in that it discusses how a population can overshoot the carrying capacity of an ecosystem, which inevitably leads to a "die-off" at the end. In the case of humans, the thinking is that petrochemical inputs (such as fertilizers and pesticides) made the "Green Revolution" possible, which lead to an explosion in human population. Once we have exhausted the oil and natural gas that are the raw materials for the petrochemicals, then the 9 billion dollar question is how much food will we be able to produce, and will we be able to make enough to feed everyone? The people who have given this a lot of thought are guessing that the maximum sustainable human population is probably in the 1-2 billion range.

I have read Overshoot, and thought it was very very good. I do have a little argument with his position though, in that I think if we really did a "back to the earth" approach to sustainable farming, we could handle a 9 billion population (small, sustainabily run farms are often 3-4 times as productive as industrial farms per acre, but much more expensive in labor and dollars). It could be done, but we really would be gong back to more of a subsistance economy, and food would once again be 60-70% of your income like in the old days. The standard of living would drop off dramatically to make it work though.

You know, we are not the first human generation or population to face the problems we are facing today. It has been done many times in the past. Only two things happen, either the societies collapse (most often case) or they find a way to succeed. There are only two ways socities have succeeded in surviving such problems with overpopulation and over resource use: They either dramatically reduce their population, or they dramatically reduce their standard of living (strictly in terms of resource use). There are no other ways, at least as historical examples, that it has been done, at least none I have ever heard of.
Which will we do? Or are we out of luck?

I have read Overshoot, and thought it was very very good. I do have a little argument with his position though, in that I think if we really did a "back to the earth" approach to sustainable farming, we could handle a 9 billion population (small, sustainabily run farms are often 3-4 times as productive as industrial farms per acre, but much more expensive in labor and dollars). It could be done, but we really would be gong back to more of a subsistance economy, and food would once again be 60-70% of your income like in the old days. The standard of living would drop off dramatically to make it work though.

There are all kinds of interesting questions. For example, how much meat would people eat? To raise a pound of beef, it takes many pounds of grain (the exact number depends on production methods). If people cut back their meat intake, then the supportable population is somewhat higher.

There is a fantastic film that you can see on the web that I just found the other day:

[QUOTE=ericy;9069984]There are all kinds of interesting questions. For example, how much meat would people eat? To raise a pound of beef, it takes many pounds of grain (the exact number depends on production methods).[QUOTE]

Actually if you raise beef and chicken right, it takes no human food at all. Grass fed beef is much better and healthier than grain fed, and people originally domesticated cows because they could live off of the vegetation on land that could not grow food people could eat. Same goes for chickens, they live best off eating insects from the crops. Cows can graze on marginal land, and graze in fallow fields, and the manure would fertilize those same fields.
Many of the sustainable small farms here in northern California are raising quite a lot of meat, on little land, by following some very scientific organic farming practices. Only thing is, running a farm like that is not only very labor intensive, but takes a huge amount of horticultural knowledge.

.....There are only two ways socities have succeeded in surviving such problems with overpopulation and over resource use: They either dramatically reduce their population, or they dramatically reduce their standard of living (strictly in terms of resource use). There are no other ways, at least as historical examples, that it has been done, at least none I have ever heard of.
Which will we do? Or are we out of luck?

I was just reading about how the ancient Greeks over used their land and it led to their colonizing other countries. The thing is we can't go to another planet yet. Another thing the ancient Greeks did - this is the reduce their population side of it- is female infanticide.

I was just reading about how the ancient Greeks over used their land and it led to their colonizing other countries. The thing is we can't go to another planet yet. Another thing the ancient Greeks did - this is the reduce their population side of it- is female infanticide.

I don't think the male population would go for female infanticide today. Besides, there is other options (like surgery) that will take care of the mindless breeding aspect of family planning at present and in the future. And what would men do in a world without women? But most (both Male & Female) seem to be too mindless or careless when it comes to actually practicing something like a more sane lifestyle-i.e. riding a bike instead of driving or admitting that you are sexually active in the first place and the inherent risks that are just as likely today as in ancient Greece.

I was just reading about how the ancient Greeks over used their land and it led to their colonizing other countries. The thing is we can't go to another planet yet. Another thing the ancient Greeks did - this is the reduce their population side of it- is female infanticide.

On a more serious note, I believe it was Jared Diamond in "Collapse" who suggested that the genocide in Rwanda was in part caused by overpopulation.

Actually if you raise beef and chicken right, it takes no human food at all. Grass fed beef is much better and healthier than grain fed, and people originally domesticated cows because they could live off of the vegetation on land that could not grow food people could eat. Same goes for chickens, they live best off eating insects from the crops. Cows can graze on marginal land, and graze in fallow fields, and the manure would fertilize those same fields.
Many of the sustainable small farms here in northern California are raising quite a lot of meat, on little land, by following some very scientific organic farming practices. Only thing is, running a farm like that is not only very labor intensive, but takes a huge amount of horticultural knowledge.

Quite true, but grass-fed beef has a gamy flavor that most people don't like. In part that's how we got into this habit of "finishing" them with corn as that fixes the flavor. If people had the choice between eating gamy meat or becoming vegetarian, I am not sure which option most people would pick .

Who knows though - maybe someday the scientists will cross-breed a pig and a melon so we can just go out and pick the meat-melon just like we would pick a cantaloupe. But on the other hand, we might instead end up with a pig that tastes like cantaloupe .

Who knows though - maybe someday the scientists will cross-breed a pig and a melon so we can just go out and pick the meat-melon just like we would pick a cantaloupe.

Maybe that's not entirely out of the question. There's already a product called Quorn, where they've managed to make a Fusarium species of fungus taste quite a bit like chicken. Some people like it, some don't, some won't try it at all.